Bill 110 repeals subsection 43(6) of the Employment Standards Act and replaces it with a provision that prevents employers from insisting on a certificate signed by a "qualified practitioner" certifying that an employee was unable to work because of illness or injury when the employee requests a leave under section 43. The change removes a common documentary requirement that employers use to verify short-term medical absences.
This matters for HR teams, employers with attendance-management programs, health-care providers who currently supply certificates, and employees seeking to avoid medicalization and privacy intrusions. The amendment streamlines access to statutory leave but also raises questions about verification, workplace safety in sensitive roles, and how enforcement will work in practice.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill deletes the existing subsection that allowed employers to require a practitioner-signed medical certificate and substitutes a rule forbidding that requirement when an employee requests a leave under section 43 of the Act. The prohibition is narrowly framed around certificates that state the employee was unable to work due to illness or injury.
Who It Affects
Directly affected parties are employers and employees operating under the PEI Employment Standards Act who rely on section 43 leave rules, plus human resources, payroll administrators, and health-care practitioners who commonly provide medical notes. Labour tribunals and compliance officers will also see changes in the types of evidence in disputes.
Why It Matters
The amendment reduces administrative and privacy burdens on employees and on clinicians who supply notes, while shifting risk onto employers to manage attendance without routine medical proof. For regulated or safety-sensitive workplaces, it creates immediate operational and legal questions about alternative verification and accommodation.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill targets one narrow but frequently used employer practice: asking employees to hand over a medical certificate signed by a clinician to substantiate an illness- or injury-related leave requested under section 43 of the Employment Standards Act. By removing the statutory hook that allowed employers to demand that kind of certificate, employees seeking the statutory leave will no longer face a legislated requirement to produce clinician-signed proof of inability to work.
The text only addresses certificates "signed by a qualified practitioner" that certify an inability to work; it does not otherwise define "qualified practitioner" or say what other kinds of documentation an employer may request. Because the amendment sits in the Employment Standards Act, the employer prohibition applies to statutory enforcement and complaints under that Act, but the bill does not create a parallel new enforcement mechanism or penalty specific to this prohibition beyond the Act's existing remedies.Practically, employers will need to revise absence policies and communication with staff: they can no longer rely on clinician certificates as a statutory gatekeeper for section 43 leave, but the bill does not explicitly stop employers from requiring other forms of information (for example, self-declarations, return-to-work forms, or fitness-for-duty assessments) where those are consistent with other laws.
The change therefore shifts the workplace conversation toward policy design: when is documentation reasonable, how to protect privacy, and how to balance operational needs, especially in safety-sensitive jobs.Because the amendment does not engage collective bargaining language, occupational health and safety rules, or human-rights accommodation standards, employers and unions will have to reconcile this new prohibition with existing contractual and statutory obligations. Finally, the bill’s brevity leaves several implementation questions for regulators and courts to answer — including the scope of "qualified practitioner," how the prohibition interacts with extended absences, and under what circumstances an employer may still seek medical information for safety or accommodation purposes.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill repeals subsection 43(6) of the Employment Standards Act and replaces it with a clause that forbids employers from requiring a practitioner-signed medical certificate when an employee requests a leave under section 43.
The statutory ban is limited to certificates "signed by a qualified practitioner" that certify the employee was unable to work because of illness or injury; the bill does not define "qualified practitioner.", The prohibition applies specifically to leave requests made under section 43 of the Act and does not explicitly address other types of statutory leaves or employer-requested documentation outside that section.
The amendment contains no new enforcement or penalty regime specific to this prohibition; enforcement would proceed under the Act’s existing compliance and remedy framework.
The bill does not prohibit employees from voluntarily providing medical certificates, nor does it state whether employers may request alternative forms of verification (for example, self-declarations or functional assessments).
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Repeal and replacement of subsection 43(6)
This single operative provision removes the old subsection 43(6) and substitutes a concise prohibition: employers may not require a certificate signed by a qualified practitioner certifying inability to work due to illness or injury when an employee requests a leave under section 43. The drafting targets the common medical-note requirement while keeping the rest of section 43 intact.
Legislative purpose as stated
The explanatory note reiterates that the amendment eliminates the employer’s power to demand clinician-signed certificates for section 43 leaves. The note confirms the change is intended to remove that documentary hurdle but does not expand on definitions, exceptions, or enforcement, so those details will be resolved through practice, guidance, or adjudication.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on this topic across all five countries.
Explore this topic in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Employees taking leave under section 43 — they avoid the cost, delay and privacy intrusion of obtaining and submitting practitioner-signed medical notes.
- Clinicians and primary-care offices — fewer routine administrative requests for certificates will reduce paperwork and time spent on non-clinical tasks.
- Employees with limited access to health care — workers who face barriers to obtaining a clinician’s note (cost, wait times, remote locations) will find it easier to access statutory leave.
Who Bears the Cost
- Employers — particularly small businesses and those with limited HR capacity must manage absence and potential misuse without the automatic filter of standardized medical notes.
- Safety-sensitive employers and regulated sectors (healthcare, transportation, childcare) — they may need to create alternate verification and risk-management measures to satisfy safety and regulatory obligations.
- Labour boards and tribunals — potential increase in disputes over entitlement and credibility of leave requests could raise caseloads and require new precedents on acceptable evidence.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is balancing employee privacy, access to leave, and reduced administrative friction against employers’ legitimate need to verify absences and manage workplace safety and productivity; the bill eases one side of that balance without prescribing how employers or regulators should prevent or respond to misuse or safety risks.
The amendment is narrow in form but wide in practical effect, and that contrast creates implementation hazards. By forbidding only practitioner-signed certificates that state inability to work, the bill avoids banning all documentation; however, it leaves open whether employers can use alternative evidence standards (self-attestation, manager observations, or functional assessments) and under what circumstances that would be reasonable.
Absent clear definitions or regulatory guidance, employers will have little statutory direction on where to draw the line between an acceptable non-medical verification and an impermissible demand for medical information.
Another unresolved issue is the interaction with other legal duties. Occupational health and safety obligations, public-safety licensing rules, or collective agreement provisions may still require medical input in particular circumstances.
The Act-level prohibition does not override those separate statutory or contractual duties, but it also does not clarify how conflicts should be resolved. Finally, because the bill does not establish tailored enforcement provisions or thresholds (for example, a number of consecutive days before verification may be required), the work of courts, tribunals, and the employment standards branch will be decisive in shaping practice — which means uncertainty and transitional disputes are likely.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.